Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
>
>   Then "copyright owner" is also wrong?

That's why it's "copyright holder", AFAIK.

BTW, "'theft' doesn't fit, and 'copyright violation' is too unwieldy" pretty
much sounds to me like someone trying to make a Beeblebrox-type of argument.
Something like, "we don't have a proper name for it, so it can't be outlawed."

Post a reply to this message